Long Eaton View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider employed care coordinators who were responsible for completing preadmission assessments and care plans as part of their role. The care coordinators also worked alongside carers and senior carers in working with people and delivering care on a day-to-day basis. This ensured that staff who were responsible for assessing people’s needs were involved with their day-to-day care and were able to communicate effectively with other care staff.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used health and social care industry standard tools to monitor important indicators of people’s health such as their weight, nutrition and fluid intake. This meant that they could spot any causes for concern and take action. The provider could also easily share information with other partner agencies such as the GP or nursing teams who used the same systems.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider liaised regularly with healthcare partners such as GPs, district nurses and the local frailty team. They kept in regular contact and made referrals to specialist care teams for people where this was required. People’s care was informed by expert advice, for example, some people had care plans in place around a risk of choking and these care plans had been put in place following consultation with the speech and language therapy (SALT) team.

People’s care plans contained detailed key information about the person, including their health needs, next of kin and their preferences and the way they like to be supported. This meant in the event of people having to go into hospital there was information available to staff that would help them to care for the person straight away without having to ask the provider for additional information.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We found there was a wide variety of food choices on the menu, with people being offered two options for every main meal, with additional food options available if they disliked both of the main options. Kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and ensured that food was prepared to the specific needs of each person.

One relative told us, “When my relative went into the home they were underweight. Since being in the home with regular meals andgood food they have put weight on”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider kept records about the care they delivered to people which staff and leaders were then able to analyse in order to look for any patterns which might represent a change in the person’s health and wellbeing. For example, one person required staff to help them reposition on a regular basis. This was recorded in their electronic care notes so that staff could check that the person had been repositioned in line with guidance provided by health professionals. This meant that the risk of damage to the person’s skin was reduced.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider had policies in place around restrictive practices. This showed that they were considering what restrictions were in place and ensuring that people gave their consent to their care and treatment where it was possible to do so. Staff and leaders were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and where people were unable to give their consent for a particular aspect of their care, a mental capacity assessment and best interest had been completed, and the least restrictive option was being used to support that person.

The provider respected people’s informed choices. For example, one person needed support to reposition themselves at regular intervals during the day and night to protect their skin integrity. On some occasions when staff prompted them and offered support, the person refused. When this occurred staff respected the person’s choice and recorded in the care plan that they had offered to reposition them. Leaders told us that staff continue to monitor the person’s skin integrity and will escalate their concerns if the person’s skin integrity becomes a concern. This showed that staff respected people’s wishes whilst also keeping them safe.

Some relatives told us they were not always updated about their family member’s care. One relative told us, “The pharmacycontacted me tocollect a prescription for my relative and when I took it in, I found out they were on another medication for an infection which I had not been informed about by the care home”.